As a county commissioner representing one of the state’s headwaters areas, I would like to point out several misconceptions in your article on Colorado’s water plan.

The idea that the plan should protect agriculture by taking more water from the West Slope is ill-founded. More diversions put West Slope agriculture at risk with no guarantee that such diversions would slow the loss of East Slope agriculture.

And the West Slope is not OK with moving more water through transmountain diversions. West Slope basins are united in their concern that diverting additional water may injure the West Slope economies and the environment that attracts people to Colorado.

Our statewide economy is one — negative impacts on the Western Slope affect the entire state. Our future depends on local leaders throughout Colorado figuring out how to conserve, reuse water, and manage future growth before thinking about further depleting our mountain streams.

Kathy Chandler-Henry, Eagle

The writer is an Eagle County commissioner.

This letter was published in the Nov. 17 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Clouds form over the Book Cliffs in Grand Junction in this August 2012 file photo. Club 20 chairman Steve Reynolds said that health-care premiums for Grand Junction residents are running about 70 percent higher than they are for Denver residents. (Anne Herbst, The Denver Post)

So Club 20, the Western Slope economic advocacy group, is concerned that Grand Junction residents pay 70 percent more than Denverites for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and Glenwood Springs residents pay another 70 percent more.

Under Medicare Part B, a public health care mandate, all seniors with similar incomes pay the same premium whether they live in New York or Newcastle.

Could it be that a public health care option for non-seniors would level the playing field across our mountains? To be sure, there are inefficiencies in government, but the bureaucrats who administer Medicare do not receive multimillion-dollar salaries like health insurance executives do.

David Wolf, Lakewood

This letter was published in the Feb. 5 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

My first reaction on reading this story was that it desperately needs a diagram to help those of us (just about everybody) who never heard about, much less encountered, such a thing, to help us understand it.

Then I Googled the subject, and realized that you’d have needed the entire page to provide even a glimmer of how this thing works. When the project is unveiled in Grand Junction, I hope The Denver Post will be ready with a clear tutorial, maybe a special edition, on this marvelous innovation.

Richard McMahan, Fort Collins

This letter was published in the Jan. 13 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

The climate crisis has driven America to a turning point — we are in the middle of a transition from the energy of the past to the energy of the future. Shell’s decision to pull out of oil shale research in Western Colorado was driven by business concerns, not by the environment, but it still illustrates the need to embrace this transition to clean energy. When the choice is between spending millions of dollars to squeeze the last drop of oil from the ground, versus investing wholeheartedly in wind and solar, we should choose clean energy. We need to make this choice for future generations instead of clinging to the past.

Margaret McCall, Denver

The writer is an energy associate for Environment Colorado.

This letter was published in the Oct. 4 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Thank you, Drew Peternell, for reminding customers of Denver Water that their lush landscaping is nourished by water from the Colorado River system.

Peternell points out that conserving water is necessary to protect life-sustaining flows in the Fraser, Blue and Colorado rivers. These rivers support rich aquatic life and the recreation economy of Grand County and others.

Supplying water to thirsty Front Range cities need not be at the expense of West Slope rivers. There are common-sense measures Denver Water could incorporate into its permit to increase diversions from the Fraser River that could result in a win-win.

In addition to more rigorous systemwide water conservation measures, Denver Water should agree to conditions that would measure river temperature in real time and adjust the flow of the river to keep the temperature from killing fish. These conditions can include important spring flushing flows that cleanse the river system and remove sediment and modifying the Fraser River banks to reflect the loss of 80 percent of the flow so the river banks fit the flow.

State Rep. Claire Levy, Boulder

This letter was published in the Aug. 1 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.